Lightning Network Observer

[franky1]

The chart depicts how the time period is getting short to gain next million which corresponds to the statement that " making first million is the hardest one" so we will see more growth in LN also in coming time.

other bridging subnetworks managed it in less than a year.
LN took over 2.3 years

heck even banks testing out CBDC managed 1m payments in a 3month trial

bitcoin does ~1700 tx per 10mins
meaning 1million in 4 days

oh and bitcoin itself initially took 2 years from birth because
emphasis: it had no existing fame nor crypto userbase to steal/offramp from.. yet with all the LN promo "is bitcoin" phishing/ co branding.. Ln didnt even manage to grow quicker then bitcoins launch

and no this is not a time for you folk to campaign a spam session of sending/ creating meaningless payment events like a game of tennis to fake payment counts

[1714252929]

1714252929

[1714252929]

1714252929

[1714252929]

1714252929

[1714252929]

1714252929

[1714252929]

1714252929

[BlackHatCoiner]

LN took over 2.3 years

If you're currently whining about lightning's capacity and routing success in 2023, everyday bringing misery in every thread, I can't imagine what you did when lightning wasn't even 3 years old yet.

heck even banks testing out CBDC managed 1m payments in a 3month trial

Brilliant comparison. Banks with millions of customers, billions in reserves, investing in all that infrastructure, managed to do 1 million payments in 3 months, in comparison with a non-sponsored, peer-to-peer network, whose success isn't incentivized by any company, and whose development was and still is voluntary. Not flawed at all.

[franky1]

funny part was the CBDC trials were not about millions of customers with billions of value
.. oh but hang on weight a minute
wasnt LN 7 years ago promoted as the solution to bitcoin scaling to allow millions of users to put their value and transact perfectly..
.. 7 years, and LN still bottlenecks with 16,000 users who only want to spend $800 each on average(1ml stats)

again you fail to even research things, you just want to reply with NO DATA and just stupid speculated crap that came out of your head.

and banks didnt invest in all that infrastructure

they actually got the silly blockstream and ethereum devs to volunteer out open source code(hyperledger committee and consultation groups)

maybe try to actually see what is outside your echo chamber of LN and see what other bridge network systems exist..

there are hundreds of them.. whilst you fools want everyone to patiently wait a few more years for LN promises..

responding to blackhat below
there is a thing called google. its this thing that operates as a search engine.. you type some words in of things you want to find. and googles lists it.

maybe start with words like hyperledger BIS CBDC
need to be spoonfed anymore? or can you learn to feed yourself yet
heck ill give you a tip of the spoon lick.. this forum has a search function and my post history too. you can find the answers easily. as i have explained them before as have others.

separate observation:
funny how you skipped over and avoided things like the other crypto bridge subnetworks launches but didnt want to talk about Ln's  failure to launch

[BlackHatCoiner]

funny part was the CBDC trials were not about millions of customers with billions of value

Isn't it reasonable to make such assumption? Bring me the evidence that support otherwise then.

[DaveF]

Not that big a deal but still interesting, the last 2 raffles that I posted in the collectables board that I gave the option of paying for with lightning were bot paid for with lightning. So people here are using it to pay when given the option. Yes, it is a small look at what is going on BUT, who many people would be using it to pay if given that option. Looking at other things in the hardware / collectables / stuff for sale boards here LN is just about never offered as a payment option.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437025  <-- minerjones paid by LN
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5436054 <-- Kryptowerk paid by LN

-Dave

[cygan]

and another big step


https://twitter.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/1618918198874882048

[franky1]

funny part is

unless its [6 million new nodes.. with their own channels where 6 million merchants lock their own BTC up to have signature control of Ln liquidity value, where they decide how much to "outbound" to other channels they choose to partner upto..]
then its not introducing 6 million people to anything that even comes close to anything like bitcoin

if the social tweet were true, i say it will be strike hauling a LN liquidity of only a few btc where it sets up ghost channels where strike offers out its outbound balance to users GUI display app... but where strike has full signature control to reduce each outbound balance towards a user, when a user sends a requests strike to lessen the balance towards said customer and request strike use another channel to put balance towards  destination

which is not true bitcoin experience or bitcoin fund control at user level, but its how LN hub models work where the apps calls it "user get inbound balance"

its a shame that a BBB doesnt know what a real bitcoin transaction feels like, and pretends users of LN hubs praying to the hub to move their balance, through a bunch of other middle men negociations along a route.. "is bitcoin"

Boring Baby Below
V                      V

[DooMAD]

true bitcoin experience

We must keep forgetting the part where you somehow got to determine what that looks like for everyone else.  Oh wait, you don't.  Go away, nazi parasite.

[franky1]

heres an observational question for you all.. and please no heavy snake oil sales pitches please, we are beyond that point now.

lets discuss rational concepts and scenarios that actually apply to real world experiences and details and data

1. when a potential user is introduced by asking them to hand in fiat to a service and is given service database balance.. is that "bitcoin"?

2. when same service has an app that converts its service database balance, to an allotment of msat on their app which may[-or may not] have a channel that the service set up x years ago.. but  is currently sidelining funds for a current user this month, whom has no signing or 'previous state' revocation control of said funds(because its new inbound balance).. is that 'bitcoin' from the users point of view during that active channel month, or just a promise of value that "may" get settled?

think logically and rationally with a concept in mind of "not-your-keys-not-your-coin"
please no silly snake oil best case. im using the previous posts tweet advert of strikes service offering to "6million merchants" (strike/clover custodian service) as a case example

[cygan]

Microstrategy is holding a #Bitcoin Lightning conference for companies to integrate #Bitcoin payments into their businesses, websites and apps!

https://www.microstrategy.com/en/world-2023?CID=7014W00000151ATQAY

[n0nce]

when you lot realise that LN is not bitcoin specific..

(1) What is the issue with that? Blockchain is not Bitcoin specific either. These are concepts that are not linked to a coin's name.
(2) Cross-chain atomic swaps work with or without Lightning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12332
(3) As long as you don't exchange your 'Lightning Bitcoin' funds for 'Lightning Litecoin' funds or something else, they are always 'redeemable' for on-chain Bitcoin funds by submitting a channel close transaction. They are always 'linked' to the channel funded with that type of coin on that type of chain. It's not that hard. It's just a different type of contract. You may be aware that the Bitcoin script language allows different types of transactions. LN channel open / close transactions are just transactions. It's no sacrilegious black magic from hell.

Not that big a deal but still interesting, the last 2 raffles that I posted in the collectables board that I gave the option of paying for with lightning were bot paid for with lightning. So people here are using it to pay when given the option.

That's nice to hear. I find myself using Lightning when it is offered, as well, since it is so convenient to spend anonymously. Since channel balances are not tracked on-chain, anything between channel open and channel close, is orders of magnitude harder to track than on-chain Bitcoin payments. So you're not going to need to mix change after every single little transaction.

lets discuss rational concepts and scenarios that actually apply to real world experiences and details and data
1. when a potential user is introduced by asking them to hand in fiat to a service and is given service database balance.. is that "bitcoin"?

In Lightning, you 'open a channel', which means you do 'lock' some balance, but you (even alone, without anyone else), with your own key, can immediately close it in the next block and 'unlock' that balance. No 'praying to someone'. That's where youre analogy is flawed.
Using keys to 'unlock' a script is actually what you do in every single Bitcoin transactions. Locking script and unlocking script. All the time. When you 'spend BTC' in a typical on-chain transaction, you actually lock Bitcoin behind a script that only the owner of the private key generating a given address, owns.
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/p2sh

2. when same service has an app that converts its service database balance, to an allotment of msat on their app [...]

Just to reiterate: msat being rounded down can lose you at most 999msat, or 0.999sat which is worth nothing right now. Transaction fees will always be higher than 1sat.


For the record:
I'm not answering for franky because it is pointless (explained it 100 times, he must be very old or something), but for anyone reading this with some intelligence and logic, who got confused by him. If you as a reader are interested in more details about the msats, search in this thread with the right keywords, I explained it all in detail: https://ninjastic.space/search?author=n0nce&content=msat&topic_id=5348270

[franky1]

a. lightning network.. like avalanche network allows you to lock up bitcoin or litecoin.
so is avalanche "BITCOIN"?
nope.. avalanche is a different network. emphasise the word network beside the word avalanche proves its another network called avalanche
so is lightning "BITCOIN"?
nope.. lightning a different network. emphasise the word network beside the word lightning proves its another network called lightning

bitcoin never leaves the BITCOIN NETWORK

dont even try to suggest bitcoin leaves the bitcoin network, you are just fooling yourself and suggesting bitcoins security model is broke

(need me to list all networks that allow bitcoin to be locked on the bitcoin. and then using the UTXO as reference point on a different network???)
just because bitcoin has a lock... does not mean whatever subnetwork then uses the utxo as a value/funding reference is also a "bitcoin network" (see point (b) below)
(im surprised by now you snake oil salesmen phishing for brand recognition and faked trust and faked security co co-branding with mainnets. have not already tried to imply that because bitcoin (in your fantasy) can be moved to other networks.. but msats are not recognised or movable back to any mainnets that you then (in your fantasy) pretend that msat units are more secure than blockchain units) because they cant/dont leave lightning

b. lightning has no blockchain. has no decentralised consensus to keep nodes aligned to a specific ruleset and nor enforces a strict peg value, etc etc etc..

c. thor turbo has proved you can offer someone msats WITHOUT "locking bitcoin"
"leasing inbound balance" has proven you can have msats without you locking "locking bitcoin"(plus have no key control of those msat payments)

d. the LIGNTNING NETWORK emphasis network. can operate with multiple coins and is not reliant on bitcoin

e. avalanche has more bitcoin pocked to it than lightning does.. .. does this make avalanche "bitcoin" or is it just another subnetwork bridge (layer 2 crossborder platform)

f. those that say its a layer "ontop"
lets take some rational views.
first like domane names. the 'top level domain name' is not the brand but the directing master seed that routes to brands and sends the mas data to where it should
i know fangirls want LN to be this master thing.. much like the IMF is the master reserve for big banks and doesnt want to be considered as the underling network for giftcarsd below the 'be your own bank' EG the lower grade network like virtual visa that can process small pocket money amounts of multiple currencies

but lightning is an underclass network. it cant handle top end reserve amounts
it cant cope with anything more then ~$700 on average
it is not the IMF network. its the virtual visa network

now is visa called "dollar" or is visa just visa allowing processing movement of visa dollars. yep visa dollars are different to bank deposit savings dollars

g. as for the "rounding down"
rounding is for instance stripping prunning cutting the right side significant figures by 3 numbers

however most lightning wallets are not just doing that.
they are without any network wide protocol enforcing it. having other methods.. and most are using
/ 1000
guys what guys.

lets say if you were to round using the strip prune right side by 2 sig figs instead of 3
lets give it a try

8434747948  (right cut by 3)
8434747 notice the rest of the numbers stay the same

now notice trying it using a division method of less than 1000
lets say 500
i guarantee you that you are not going to get
8434747948  ("round by 500")
8434747474 (you hope that it just plays with the end 3 but by half the amount
instead you get
16869495.896

do you now see how math logic is that trimright(X,3)
is different than X/1000

and for emphasis
the /1000 is not even an enforced rule
and it can be changed by any amount

so whether a lightning app does math logic code a "round down" properly by cutting away the right side by 3 or with the lazy bug causing /1000

these can be changed to not be cut right by 3 or /1000, but changed to anything..
meaning different nodes are not set in stone/hardrule protocol where an msat will always be 3significant figures to a sat
which is a bad conversion peg security for any financial system
there is no network strengthened rule set to abide by a set conversion rate
refer to(b)

h.
oh and the last funny.. by introducing RBF, your little crown have been snake oiling the flame by saying dont trist zero confirms relayed on the bitcoin network they re not settled they are not confirmed, blah
but you lot also want to say lightning zero-confirm commitments are to be trusted and are to be treated as being paid (facepalm for multiple reasons)

[cygan]

a somewhat curious story was made public yesterday by the swede Oliver Koblizek via twitter. he was suddenly shown the option to complete the payment process with the bluewallet installed on his mobile phone when using the state app for public transport in sweden 'jlt nya'. being a Bitcoiner, he was of course directly curious, so he selected the option and a valid bus ticket was issued to him, as expected. A short time later, the option was no longer available.
here you can read the whole story on twitter👉https://twitter.com/Stromens/status/1625457745628475392

[Carlton Banks]

a somewhat curious story was made public yesterday by the swede Oliver Koblizek via twitter. he was suddenly shown the option to complete the payment process with the bluewallet installed on his mobile phone when using the state app for public transport in sweden

that's odd

Sweden is a curious case, one of the few EU countries to have:

• their own currency
• their own defence (i.e. weapons) industry
• home grown manufacturers (although slowly dying off still, Germany still dominates EU industry)

and Sweden also have a unique position in the EU: the only country living under "quantitative easing" and general Japan-style financial/fiscal insanity for multiple decades (not sure if Sweden started before even Japan did...)

so on a political level, the Swedish toying with any kind of cryptocurrency matter at the public level is going to make more waves than one might suppose

[franky1]

it wasnt a political thing it was a middle man service

just like CEX that offer virtual visa cards do not need endorsement of visa CEO
they just use a virtual visa PSP(payment service provider)

the reason it stopped is the usual flaw. liquidity bottlenecks between LN hubs
.. its also the reason why el salvador chivo wallet dropped lightning too and instead went for a CEX backbone for chivo to manage payments

[fillippone]

Someone of you, could please point me in the right direction to decrypt the following sentence:
"If Ordinals Protocol were used by the vast majority of users (wallets) it would break the LN routing".

What is the connection between the twos?
 

[JayJuanGee]

Someone of you, could please point me in the right direction to decrypt the following sentence:
"If Ordinals Protocol were used by the vast majority of users (wallets) it would break the LN routing".

What is the connection between the twos?

Of course, I am not the expert who's input you are seeking, but it seems to me that the logic is that if the onchain blockchain fees and space gets filled up, then more and more transactions will be pushed towards the lightning network. 

I will believe it when I see it, and I am not going to complain if more and more transactions are taking place on bitcoin, even if they are dumb ones and even if the filling up of the regular blockchain space causes more and more of the lightning routing networks to get filled up too.

[fillippone]

Someone of you, could please point me in the right direction to decrypt the following sentence:
"If Ordinals Protocol were used by the vast majority of users (wallets) it would break the LN routing".

What is the connection between the twos?

Of course, I am not the expert who's input you are seeking, but it seems to me that the logic is that if the onchain blockchain fees and space gets filled up, then more and more transactions will be pushed towards the lightning network. 

I will believe it when I see it, and I am not going to complain if more and more transactions are taking place on bitcoin, even if they are dumb ones and even if the filling up of the regular blockchain space causes more and more of the lightning routing networks to get filled up too.

I hardly see how can be a problem for LN! On the opposite, this is a success story for this L2 solution! One of the main reasons for LN being successful is base layer space being filled up with high transaction fees!

[franky1]

LN suffers from a liquidy bottleneck

imagine "users" are 5 "routers" hops from other "users"
where the routers are not holding value for their own spending. but just facilitating payments for users

A \                          / N
B --  G                L -- O
C /      \            /     \ P
            I - J - K
D \      /           \      / Q
E --  H               M --  R
F /                          \ S

imagine each of ABCDEF had $500 they wanted to spend with any of NOPQRS
guess how much I J K needs to have set, not for its own use but to facilitate the routes of ABCDEF

imagine everyone one OF ABCDEFNOP wanted to pay S
how much would M need in the M-S channel to facilitate payments to S

run some scenarios. and realise that its not a simple system of
if A wants to spend $500 to S, where S can receive $500-$5.5k guaranteed

also when saying that ABCDEF had say 1m coins each
how many other coins are need to be locked up. not for personal spending. but to make payments viable for destinations 5 hops away

in the example above
G need 3m coins to pay I and G needs
I needs 6m coins to pay J
J needs 6m coins to pay K
K needs 3m+3m just to pay L and M

thats 21m coins needing to be locked up just to allow 6 users of 1m coins
and thats just 1 direction payment. now do the math of amounts GKJKLM needs to pay in the direction of NOPQRS->ABCDEF

see the problem at max scale where being a network of main use to replace using bitcoin wont work

LN will never be the main payment network of bitcoin where bitcoin is the "reserve lock" network of dead data

[cygan]

Today, we are announcing that the Lightning node, Lndhub.io, where BlueWallet provides Lightning wallets to its users, is sunsetting. While you can still withdraw your sats, creating new or refilling existing Lightning wallets on LndHub node will no longer be possible.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bluewallet-to-sunset-custodial-lightning-wallet-service


https://twitter.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/1628832894385790978